Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#201

Post by mkl »

MattGrommes wrote: post #146
thot_experiment wrote: post #9

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

In a world where copyright only lasts 10 years, what happens to the musician whose song from 20 years ago is used in a movie and becomes super popular? Do they get royalties or are there no royalties involved? I want a system that doesn't syphon money to the corporations over the individual creator and the corporations can't tell me I can't use the song.

No royalties, as the 20-year-old song would be in the public domain, so no one can tell anyone they can't use the song. The vast majority of songs that make a profit will do so within the first few years, with almost or actually nothing after 10 years. The copyright system should optimise for public benefit and the vast majority of works, rather than the tiny number of big successes.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#202

Post by aidenn0 »

scott_w wrote: post #66

Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?

If you run an add saying "This van can outrun the cops" you're in trouble. Selling a van to a known bank-robber is fine though.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#203

Post by elicash »

doomboiardee wrote: post #151

I wonder if OpenAI, et.al were eagerly awaiting this verdict because once an ISP is liable...well I'm sure you can extrapolate from there.

There are important factual differences compared to the challenges against OpenAI, but I think yes this decision does ultimately offer them some new legal protection against whatever customers decide to do with their tools.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#204

Post by GolfPopper »

frenchtoast8 wrote: post #150
jetrink wrote: post #129

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , also known as the "Betamax case." > (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434. > In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id…

> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less c…

In the late 80s and early 90s there was a great deal of blatantly pirated SF, Fantasy, and Anime videotapes for sale at conventions, typically recorded from OTA, satellite, or cable for Western stuff. Anime was typically better quality, copied from Japanese originals with fan dubs added. Some of it was "at cost" where you were paying other fans for the their time, equipment, and the tape. Others were more obviously for-profit, with higher prices and sometimes better quality.

To be clear, this was the only way to get most of the stuff being traded and sold. TV shows or films with no VHS release, or anime with no official dub or American format release.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#205

Post by snowwrestler »

thot_experiment wrote: post #9

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

If copyright was only a decade then Sony could have waited 5 more years and made the movie of Project Hail Mary without paying one dime to Andy Weir.

I think the law is too long now, but a decade is too short to protect artists. Even a patent is 20 years.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#206

Post by burningChrome »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #106
burningChrome wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense? Its like saying car manufacturers should be res…

The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists. There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting. Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen. Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these g…

[dead]

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#207

Post by bombcar »

aksss wrote: post #126
shevy-java wrote: post #87

> The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement So they try to hold the provider responsible. While I disagree with this, I can at the least understand some rationale behind it, even though this is inconsistent. For instance, if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held a…

> if someone uses a gun..why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here? They absolutely can be held accountable. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has carve-outs for: negligent entrustment - when a dealer or manufacturer provides a firearm knowing it will be used for a crime; negligence per se - when a seller knowingly violated state or federal laws in the sale or marketing of the…

Using a "gun" in the example is just a away to incite people's natural reactions one way or another.

A fairer example would be holding Microsoft liable for people using Word for ransom notes or something.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#208

Post by aidenn0 »

elpool2 wrote: post #138
elpool2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you would still have to remove the infringing content , but no need to disconnect or ban the user who shared it. But if you’re a pure ISP and not hosting content on your own servers, then I guess, yeah DMCA doesn’t really apply to you?

Actually, it looks like there is something in the law that only provides DMCA safe harbor to providers that have a policy of terminating accounts of repeat infringers. I'm still not sure if an ISP would even need that safe harbor though.

Lower circuit court said they did, Supreme Court overturned that.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#209

Post by mmahd7456 »

nekusar wrote: post #137
megaman821 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? You pay property tax because local services schools, streets, police and fire fighters need to be funded. Having a property in the area is a pretty great proxy for using some of these services, hence the property tax.

I was expecting that as a response. There is no reason why tax has to be done as property tax. Property tax demeans actual ownership of a place for us to live. (And why the hell do corporations get away with no tax on intellectual property, or even pay on profits, whereas we humans pay on revenue and property?) Worse yet, property taxes also enshrine the idea that the community's schools in poor areas deserve poor ed…

Volunteer firefighters, public schools, and police/sheriffs still need equipment and facilities. Whether you call it property tax or "public services" tax, it amounts to the same thing. The community needs a way to fund the shared community services, and there has to be some sort of metric that determines how much each citizen contributes to the fund.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#210

Post by aidenn0 »

nekusar wrote: post #103

I have to pay property tax forever for a house I supposedly own. If I dont pay that, the government sues and takes my house. Basically I never actually own my house. (Of course, we have "Evil Communist China" where there is no property tax, and people own their homes and can live there. Id argue they're more free than we are.) But copyrights and patents and trademarks? There's no tax on those "properties". And gee, c…

First of all, I'm a Georgist, so I think you should be allowed to own your house, but rent the land indefinitely (and freely transfer your interest in renting the land).

I'd like to see how free someone in China feels if they put up a Winnie The Pooh yard-sign (which I can do freely in the US, despite Disney owning the copyright for the likeness that I would use).

Post reply on HN